Repatriation Commission v Thompson, W.H. [1988] FCA 320

Repatriation Commission v Thompson, W.H. [1988] FCA 320

The Tribunal's finding that Mr Thompson did not incur danger from hostile forces during his service was a pure question of fact, not an error of law, and the words of s.36(a)(i) require actual, objective danger to be incurred, not merely theoretical or perceived danger.

Parties
Appellant: The Repatriation Commission; Respondent: Walter Harold Thompson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Federal Court on Appeal From a Single Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Veterans' Entitlements, Qualifying Service, Error of Law Vs Error of Fact
Administrative Law Veterans' Entitlements Qualifying Service Error of Law Vs Error of Fact

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Repatriation Commission

Appellant

Walter Harold Thompson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Federal Court on Appeal From a Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting s.36(a)(i) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether service satisfied requirements for a service pension under s.36(a)(i)
  3. 3 Whether endorsement on certificate of discharge was relevant evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's finding that Mr Thompson did not incur danger from hostile forces during his service was a pure question of fact, not an error of law, and the words of s.36(a)(i) require actual, objective danger to be incurred, not merely theoretical or perceived danger.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The orders below be set aside
  • In lieu thereof, order that the appeal to the Court be dismissed